House of Representatives – The National Wildlife Federation Bloghttp://blog.nwf.org
The National Wildlife Federation's blogThu, 17 Aug 2017 19:08:14 +0000en-UShourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=4.8What Went Wrong with the Farm Bill?http://blog.nwf.org/2013/06/what-went-wrong-with-the-farm-bill/
http://blog.nwf.org/2013/06/what-went-wrong-with-the-farm-bill/#respondFri, 21 Jun 2013 20:52:36 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/?p=81487After the Senate easily passed a Farm Bill earlier in June, many thought the House of Representatives had the votes in the bag to pass their own version. For 2 years, I’ve been working on farm bill policy, and I’ve got to say, I was looking forward to getting it done and moving on to other things. To tell the truth, I wasn’t even paying much attention to the final House vote, when various expletives from nearby cubicles preceded the surprising news—the final Farm Bill failed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 195-234.

In retrospect, it’s easy to see what went wrong, and maybe, the final result is not so surprising.

The longer it take to pass a farm bill, the picture becomes more bleak for funding for wildlife and conservation. Photo: Library of Congress, Jack Delano – via flickr.

The 2008 Farm Bill extension expires in September, so some sort of extension or legislation must pass before certain aspects of the farm bill revert to wacky permanent farm law from 1938. In the meantime, farm bill conservation will pay the price for Congress’s inaction. As long as conservation compliance is not connected to crop insurance, taxpayers are actually paying incentives for wetland drainage, conversion of native grassland, and risky farming practices that could lead to soil erosion and reduced water quality. Futhermore, with each passing year that Congress fails to pass a five-year bill, the available baseline of funding for conservation decreases and the picture will begin to look very bleak for wildlife.

Farm bill conservation programs benefit millions of acres of wildlife habitat. It is absolutely critical that a five-year farm bill is passed, and that it contains key provisions to protect land, water and wildlife.

So, what is the solution?

Citizens must let Congress know the farm bill is a priority for everyone. Photo: Lara Bryant

It is hard to say what will happen next for the farm bill. The Senate version passed easily, had the President’s approval, and was a strong farm bill that contained key provisions for conservation. Could the House adopt a version of the Farm Bill modeled on the Senate bill? Could we avoid the political gridlock by separating SNAP from the Farm Bill? Should they put Tywin Lannister in charge of the whole thing? It is hard to say what could work, but Congress must do something, and citizens need to weigh in and make it clear that the farm bill is a priority. We need a strong farm bill that ensures a safety net for farmers to provide all of us with an affordable food supply, while protecting our natural resources. Stay tuned to see how you can help.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2013/06/what-went-wrong-with-the-farm-bill/feed/0Efficient Vehicles: A Better Way to Gohttp://blog.nwf.org/2011/09/efficient-vehicles-a-better-way-to-go/
http://blog.nwf.org/2011/09/efficient-vehicles-a-better-way-to-go/#commentsSat, 24 Sep 2011 18:04:31 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/nwfview/?p=1468This editorial was published in the October/November 2011 issue of National Wildlife magazine.

Also announced—and broadly agreed upon—were the first ever standards for heavy duty trucks that will reduce their fuel use by 10 to 20 percent by 2018. Currently, more than 30 percent of fossil-fuel carbon dioxide emissions in this country come from petroleum that is used mainly by the transportation sector.

Fuel efficiency standards that cover all cars and trucks mean that we will see innovation and fuel savings in all types of vehicles, from semi-trailers and school buses to pickup trucks, minivans, family sedans and electric cars like the Chevrolet Volt, pictured here.

National Wildlife Federation supports these agreements because they mean passenger cars and light trucks built in 2025 will emit about 50 percent less carbon pollution than cars today and heavy trucks will reduce their carbon emissions significantly.

These landmark White House agreements came about through responsible negotiations with automakers, environmentalists and labor unions. While we did not get the full 60 mpg for which we had called for, these standards will make a very significant dent in tailpipe pollution. And we will continue to work with all the parties to speed innovation in cars and trucks.

New Fuel Standards Mean Gas Savings for all Vehicles

According to the Union of Concern Scientists, the latest passenger vehicle agreement will cut carbon pollution by more than 308 million tons in 2030—the equivalent to shutting down 72 coal-fired power plants. The group also predicts “lower fuel expenditures at the pump by over $80 billion in 2030—even after paying for the cost of the necessary technology, consumers will still clear $50 billion in savings that year alone.” These savings mean billions more being spent at home, boosting our economy locally and improving our serious trade deficit. They also will reduce our dependence on Middle East oil by saving as much as 23 billion gallons of gasoline annually by 2030, which is equal to the total current annual imports from both Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

The many hybrid models now in the market have certainly contributed to improving the nation’s overall fuel efficiency. As an owner of a hybrid, I can assure you that I enjoy passing gas stations that I once stopped at to fill up. But standards that cover all cars and trucks mean that we will see innovation and fuel savings in all types of vehicles, from semi-trailers and school buses to pickup trucks, minivans, family sedans and electric cars.

Will the House of Representatives Stand in the Way of More Efficient Cars?

The final rule for heavy duty trucks was adopted in August. The handshake agreement for passenger vehicles will be proposed formally as a draft regulation open for public comment and input by the end of September. A final rule, if adopted, will be published in July 2012.

Leave it to the U.S. House of Representatives to oppose the passenger vehicle agreement and try to block any responsible solution to a serious environmental and economic problem. In a three-page letter sent to the CEOs of nine major automakers, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said the committee “has begun an investigation into the nature of the negotiations.” He added that the deal appears “to have been negotiated in secret, outside the scope of law, with potentially significant negative impacts for consumers.”

The Obama administration has estimated that, under the plan, consumers will save $1.7 trillion at the pump. It appears that the only “significant negative impact” will be to big oil interests that have made record profits in recent years and pocketed many billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidizes, and their Middle East suppliers who will sell a lot less oil to the United States. The legislative backlash should be expected, since oil interests are making huge contributions to lawmakers who watch out for their interests and protect their tax subsidies.

We commend the Obama administration for working in a spirit of cooperation with affected interests to forge a reasonable compromise with major benefits for the public, the economy and wildlife. We are saddened by all attacks on our landmark environmental and conservation laws, including the Clean Air Act, that underpin these standards. As this passenger vehicle agreement (as in previous fuel-efficiency agreements) will be submitted to a formal rule-making process in which all U.S. citizens will have a chance to voice their opinions, we encourage NWF members to actively participate as it moves forward.

Share Your Views

What do you think about these new standards? Do you know if your representatives support them? Comment on this blog or connect with me on Facebook or Twitter and let me know what you think.

A press conference was held on Capitol Hill today in support of an amendment to the House Environment and Interior Appropriations bill that would protect people and wildlife by striking a rider in the bill that delays the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to limit mercury and other harmful air toxics emitted from power plants.

The amendment, introduced by Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) would allow the EPA to set standards for dangerous air pollution that will save thousands of lives each year and reduce 90% of mercury that is emitted from coal fired power plants.

Mercury is a particularly harmful air toxic because it settles from the air onto our lakes, rivers and forests, polluting the environment and accumulating up the food chain as fish and wildlife consume the contamination.

Please call your Representative at 1- 202-224-3121 and tell him or her to vote “YES” on the Capps amendment to H.R. 2584, the House Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.

NWF activists support Rep. Lois Capps and Rep. Jan Schakowsky as they work to limit mercury pollution

Mothers in Congress spoke at the event, including Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. Doris Matsui (D-CA), Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL). All expressed concern about the effects of mercury on children and women of child bearing age. Mercury is especially dangerous to children and developing fetuses; exposure affects a child’s ability to walk, talk, read, write and learn.

The EPA is currently accepting public comments on a proposed rule to limit mercury and air toxics from power plants. The public has been largely supportive of this rule. EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe noted that since March, the EPA has received over 800,000 comments from across the country in support of regulating these harmful emissions.

As National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Larry Schweiger said today, the House’s fiscal year 2012 Interior and Environment Appropriations would be a giveaway to big polluters:

From politically-motivated budget tricks to policy riders that have nothing to do with the deficit, this bill contains dozens of attacks on America’s wildlife, air, water, and public health. Poll after poll has shown that strong majorities of voters across party lines – Democrats, Republicans, and independents – stand together against the House leadership’s attacks on America’s longstanding national commitment to protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink. It’s fair to ask who members of Congress supporting this massive overreach are representing – their constituents or polluter lobbyists?

This legislation would take every single American backwards. If a child in your family suffers from asthma, you should oppose this bill. If you’re a sportsman, a wildlife lover, or value America’s national parks, you should oppose this bill. If you think your vehicle should carry your family further every time you pay for a tank of gas, you should oppose this bill.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2011/07/constituents-or-lobbyists-who-do-house-leaders-represent/feed/1Dirty Water: A Theme Song for Congresshttp://blog.nwf.org/2011/07/dirty-water-a-theme-song-for-congress/
http://blog.nwf.org/2011/07/dirty-water-a-theme-song-for-congress/#commentsThu, 14 Jul 2011 17:05:06 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/?p=27059Recently, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 2018, the Dirty Water Act, which completely trashes the protections of the Clean Water Act. Unfortunately, this is just one of many attacks on this bedrock environmental safeguard that protects public health and wildlife by protecting our waters. Some members of Congress seem to have forgotten about the polluted past of our rivers, lakes and streams. The folks in Boston, however, still have a good reminder of how things use to be.

It’s a tradition to play the 1960s classic hit Dirty Water as a victory anthem after every Red Sox win. True to its name, the lyrics mention how polluted the Charles River and Boston Harbor were at the time. It’s a past we don’t want to go back to, a past the Clean Water Act helped clean up.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2011/07/dirty-water-a-theme-song-for-congress/feed/1Just When You Thought It Was Safe to Go Back in the Waterhttp://blog.nwf.org/2011/07/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-go-back-in-the-water/
http://blog.nwf.org/2011/07/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-go-back-in-the-water/#commentsThu, 07 Jul 2011 19:50:50 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/?p=26558More evidence that Congress lives in an alternate universe: they still think offshore oil rigs are no place for regulators.

Basic common sense says that if you want to increase oil production, you at least need to pay for more rig inspectors to handle the extra work.

But the new annual government spending bill introduced this week in the House of Representatives is an assault on common sense: not only does it under-fund BOEMRE (the oil watchdog agency) but it also includes a provision to speed up drilling offshore Alaska and re-write the Clean Air Act in favor of major polluters. Meanwhile, in the Senate, lawmakers are trying to put oil rigs off the coast of Virginia and in the Arctic Ocean.

Since the Gulf disaster we have learned that spills are the rule, not the exception, when it comes to offshore drilling. Many of them go unreported; the Guardian article cited above calls its findings just “the tip of the iceberg.”

Other accidents are kept quiet, [whistleblowers] claim, because workers fear they cannot report them in case they lose their jobs. One veteran said that although everyone is formally told to report anything that goes wrong, staff adhere to an informal code to remain silent to avoid a halt in drilling that loses money for the companies.

So the deck is stacked against safety from the beginning, and BOEMRE (The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement…whew!) already has its hands full: a senior staffer told us that the House’s budget is $35 million less than BOEMRE needs for inspectors and permit planning for future leases. For an agency that already runs on fumes and table scraps, that’s a huge chunk of money.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2011/07/just-when-you-thought-it-was-safe-to-go-back-in-the-water/feed/1Gulf spill side effect: Amnesiahttp://blog.nwf.org/2011/05/gulf-spill-side-effect-amnesia/
http://blog.nwf.org/2011/05/gulf-spill-side-effect-amnesia/#commentsThu, 05 May 2011 20:45:56 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/?p=21298The politics around offshore drilling have taken a turn for the crazy. Last month, while the rest of the country was marking the one-year memorial of the Deepwater Horizon tragedy, members of the House of Representatives apparently decided that the spill never happened in the first place. Led by Rep. Doc Hastings (R-WA) they wrote three bills that would drastically expand offshore drilling while removing basic environmental protections and limiting oversight of oil development.

Coming soon to a coastline near you? (photo: flickr/hunting.glee)

Now, it’s one thing to support offshore drilling, but the Hastings bills are something else entirely: they would actually weaken the rules that were in place a year ago, before the BP rigsank and spewed 2oo million gallons of crude oil into the ocean. And keep in mind that Congress still hasn’t passed a single bill addressing oil spills, worker safety or Gulf restoration.

The House of Representatives just approved the first of the three today, opening new areas including offshore Virginia to drilling. The bill also forces regulators to rely on outdated, pre-BP spill Environmental Impact Statements, the government’s tool for deciding where it’s safe to drill and what steps we should take to prevent disasters. They’ll be voting on a second bill next week that limits the regulators’ ability to review drilling permits; the third bill would open up virtually the entire US coast to oil development.

Essentially what this says is, “All the lessons we’ve learned since the spill? Just ignore them.”

The bills’ supporters, to nobody’s surprise, are dusting off the gas prices bogeyman. They figure that Americans care enough about $4 gas that we’re willing to overlook everything else, but the fact is that more offshore drilling won’t affect the price at the pump: according to the nonpartisan Energy Information Agency, opening up the entire US coast to development (which is what the House bills would do) wouldn’t lower costs at all by 2020, and would only lower prices by three cents a gallon by 2030! And we’re already producing oil and gas at the highest levels in nearly a decade. It’s hard to get much plainer proof than that–the US can’t drill its way to cheap gas.

So what are these bills really about? It’s hard to see them as anything except a giveaway to Big Oil companies (who, in case you didn’t notice, are doing just fine) and a political reaction to the White House’s post-spill drilling reforms. And what’s really scary is that the offshore drilling agency is already short on resources and can’t possibly keep pace with the new paperwork and oversight responsibilities the bills would create…talk about kicking someone when they’re down.

“I don’t have amnesia, and neither does the president. And much of the legislation that I have seen being bandied around, especially with the House Republicans, is almost as if the Deepwater Horizon Macondo well incident never happened.”

Today’s vote, though, showed that amnesia is a bipartisan problem: 33 Democrats joined 231 Republicans on the wrong side of this issue.

NWF sent a letter to Congress opposing the bills, and we’ll continue to fight these and other irresponsible policies that endanger wildlife, coastal communities, and the natural resources we all rely upon. To read more about our work to restore the Gulf and prevent another disaster, visit nwf.org/oilspill.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2011/05/gulf-spill-side-effect-amnesia/feed/4It’s April Fool’s Day, and the Joke’s On Ushttp://blog.nwf.org/2011/04/its-april-fools-day-and-the-jokes-on-us/
http://blog.nwf.org/2011/04/its-april-fools-day-and-the-jokes-on-us/#respondFri, 01 Apr 2011 19:18:25 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/?p=17773When it comes to the environment, water pollution is the issue Americans worry about the most. Unfortunately, members of Congress are making light of those fears just in time for April Fool’s Day.

The amendments and riders attached to the House-passed Continuing Resolutionare dismantling Clean Water Act(CWA) protections. The CWA protects clean drinking water for millions of Americans, limits pollution and helps to restore troubled waters.

Who's laughing now? Photo:Flickr

Another troublesome bill stripping away Clean Water Act safeguards is H.R. 872, which recently passed in the House of Representatives. The legislation, otherwise known as the Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act of 2011, could be a big burden on public health and wildlife habitat. This legislation rolls back CWA by giving free reign to industries that pollute our waters with pesticides.

The battle over polluter bailouts in H.R. 1 isn’t over, yet. The Senate, House of Representatives and White House must reach a budget compromise, and legislators have an opportunity to restore the Clean Water Act and other bedrock environmental safeguards. Tell your papers and yourmembers of Congressnot to let big polluters have free reign with our natural resources. Clean water isn’t a joke, and lawmakers shouldn’t treat it that way.

Oil companies and other polluters have once again convinced a new crop of political leaders to take a crowbar to the nation’s environmental laws and try to wedge open a few new loopholes.

It first happened in 1995. Congress’ attack on the Environmental Protection Agency and their efforts to add anti-environmental riders to budget bills became a central issue as President Clinton vetoed the bills, leading to the last government shut down (and Republican losses in the 1996 elections).

Who are the House leaders making these decisions? Meet Ed Whitfield (R-Kentucky), the new chair of a key congressional subcommittee on energy, who explained to the National Journal why Republicans are trying to block EPA from enforcing the Clean Air Act:

“This is a much broader issue than the health of the American people and lungs and emphysema; it’s how can we balance that in the global marketplace for jobs.”

Rep. Whitfield’s premise that Americans must sacrifice our children’s lungs in order to protect jobs points to the huge gulf between the extreme views of some GOP House leaders and the American public. The polluter bailouts nestled in the 2011 budget bill have become a liability for the House GOP. The attacks on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act are starting to expose the hidden agenda of members like Rep. Whitfield, and they are now a barometer of the extreme political agenda that is being advanced under the guise of deficit reduction.

Here’s a local press report of a town hall meeting held by Rep. Charlie Bass (R-NH), who recently won back his seat in New Hampshire’s second district:

“About 50 people crowded into the Salem Town Hall to hear from the Republican congressman, who took questions on illegal immigration, the national debt, health care, education, and other topics. But climate change and regulation of greenhouse gases dominated most of the discussion…”

Not many of Rep. Bass’ colleagues were as willing to have public meetings during this recess, but that didn’t stop concerned constituents from turning up at their offices. A few that are being reported by local news stations and creating buzz include constituents of Representatives Glenn Thompson and Jim Gerlach in Pennsylvania and Steve Stivers in Ohio.

Congress’ attacks on the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Acts have also rallied a broad cross-section of civic leaders across the nation who are speaking out, including:

Hopeful Signs?

A piece of good news comes from the same House GOP leaders who initially opened the door to adding polluter favors to the budget bill. A temporary 2-week extension offered Friday night is a clean bill without any of the oilmarks included one week ago. While this is good news, it is a baby step and may be a fleeting victory. The House GOP leaders are still threatening a showdown with the Senate and President Obama, and they have not given any sign that, as the additional 2 weeks expire, they will back away from the extreme and reckless bill they recently passed.

It’s still not clear where this showdown is headed when any short-term extension expires. President Obama promised a veto of the House budget bill passed last week.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) got it right when he said this week:

“We believe that the hundreds of riders and legislative matters [added to the House CR] are strictly the worst kind of politics. How do they expect us to agree to any of that? And we’re not going to. … The CR is to deal with funding for our government, not all these other goodies they think are cute at this time.”

House GOP leaders have proven with the 2-week extension that they are capable of leaving the polluter favors and oilmarks out of the spending bill. They would be wise to do so.

Editorial Boards and Opinion Leaders Speak Out

The backlash against the extreme environmental attacks in the budget bill have also attracted the attention of editorial boards and opinion leaders across the nation. Rob Perks at NRDC has been tracking these stories on his blog, which you can read here. I have captured a sampling of media below.

But for a sense of spending cuts made solely for political sake, nothing quite beats the attack on the environment in this spending bill. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were assaulted repeatedly. Much of it took the form of stripping the Environmental Protection Agency of its enforcement powers to protect the health and well-being of the American people.

The range and destructiveness of these assaults were breathtaking. They include provisions to curtail the scientific study of climate change, blocking the EPA from protecting wetlands and streams from harmful dumping, stopping the EPA from dumping waste from mountain top removal in stream valleys, and, that old GOP favorite, barring the EPA from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.

The National Wildlife Federation called the spending bill a “pollution pinata.” It identified 14 egregious examples of environmentally damaging amendments for which the total budget savings was zero (although many of them will end up costing the nation money by endangering public health). It also noted that an amendment that would have eliminated billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies was defeated. So much for this being all about the deficit.

Look to Washington for the bigger story. As The Los Angeles Times recently reported, Koch Industries and its employees form the largest bloc of oil and gas industry donors to members of the new House Energy and Commerce Committee, topping even Exxon Mobil. And what do they get for that largess? As a down payment, the House budget bill not only reduces financing for the Environmental Protection Agency but also prohibits its regulation of greenhouse gases. Here again, the dollars that will be saved are minute in terms of the federal deficit, but the payoff to Koch interests from a weakened E.P.A. is priceless.

If [entitlement] costs are contained, there will be no need to live with dirtier air or other cuts rooted more in ideology or corporate self-interest than in governance that is effective, affordable and responsibly financed.

Last November Americans demanded that Congress take immediate action to shrink fish and wildlife populations, speed the end of duck hunting, reduce the safety of our drinking water, destroy more wetlands, dirty the air we breathe, increase the rate of sea level rise swamping our coast- and protect profits for oil companies.

Didn’t know that?

Then you haven’t been listening to Republicans like our own Steve Scalise (R-Jefferson) and Tea Partiers who now control the House of Representatives. All those changes are included in the budget resolution they sent to the Senate last week.

“The BP oil spill, the worst in America’s offshore drilling history, is not even a year old. Only weeks ago, lawmakers demanded more accountability in drilling and oversight. Now Republicans see no issue chopping away at that oversight.”

The new House Republican majority likes to say that the American people spoke last year. If the GOP’s spending bill is any indication, it seems the American people are clamoring for more mercury in their fish, oil on their coasts and pollution in their drinking water. Those would be just some of the environmental highlights of a House spending bill to keep the government running through Sept. 30. Or perhaps anti-environmental highlights would be more apt. Anti-health, too.

The budget passed by U.S. House Republicans — it got zero Democratic votes — early last Saturday morning is rash and dangerous. Designed to get the country through until Oct. 1, the House resolution slashes programs in midstream and ties the hands of several departments, particularly the Environmental Protection Agency.

Yet even this retailored approach is sure to whip the Republicans into a fresh frenzy of opposition. They have already made clear their determination to cut off financing and otherwise undermine the Environmental Protection Agency, which plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants and other industrial sources using its authority under the Clean Air Act.

But basic scientific research? Energy efficiency? Cleaner fuels? The House Republican budget resolution gives the back of its hand to even these worthy and unobjectionable strategies, which until now have enjoyed reliable bipartisan support.

Generations of 2nd District congressmen (including Bass himself, in an earlier congressional tenure) have consistently argued that representing New Hampshire means looking out for the environment. In this case, the health of Bass’s constituents could be improved by better regulation of aging power plants to the west. The health of everyone’s constituents will be improved by more fuel-efficient cars and trucks. And, of course, there is an economic component to that environmentalism too: New Hampshire’s tourism and recreation industries depend on climate protection.

In one of history’s sorrier twists, Republicans in the U.S. House are down on the Environmental Protection Agency, way down. This week they’re trying to gut its powers to regulate pollutants in the air, on farmland and in water. Yet the national movement to protect our environment had its roots in the heyday of Republican Theodore Roosevelt, and Richard Nixon helped create the EPA. So why all the animosity now? Overreaching regulations that stifle business, agency opponents say. However, the EPA generally proposes rules that are required by law – and common sense. The more we know about ill-health in humans and ill-effects on the natural world, the more obvious it is that industrial processes must be regulated for the common good. Some pollution is inevitable, but the government is right to put a lid on it.

To ensure that the health and environment of Wisconsin’s families are protected, Wisconsin’s members of Congress should reject the funding cuts, and instead stand up for cleaner air, cleaner water, and preserving our environment.

Republicans in Congress, and some Democrats, are bent on blocking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from curbing greenhouse gases. For that matter, they would be happy to have the agency stand back in a number of areas, from safer toxic coal-ash disposal to improving the efficiency of industrial boilers and solid-waste incinerators. One reason they give is that regulation is bad for business. The main source they cite: senior business executives desirous of maximum short-term corporate profits, and thus maximum compensation for the execs. The other aspects of the equation — public health and welfare — are rarely mentioned. Indeed, the long-term health of the U.S. economy stands to benefit greatly from a shift to cleaner and more efficient energy.

The House plan also takes aim at specific regulations that Republicans find politically objectionable. For example, it bars the Environmental Protection Agency from enforcing limits on carbon dioxide pollution. Like a tea party manifesto, the plan strips funding from federal regulatory agencies that protect workers, food safety and the environment.

What do clean water and clean air have to do with the budget? Absolutely nothing – the budget deficit is being used as cover to mount a reckless and irresponsible sneak attack on the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act that endangers the air we breathe, the water we drink and the wildlife and lands we cherish.

Some members of Congress have launched a stealth attack on one of the most important laws protecting our health and our children’s future by adding amendments to the Continuing Resolution – a stop-gap measure to keep the government running through the end of this fiscal year – that would roll back portions of the Clean Air Act.

Largely hidden in its attack on the federal budget, the House of Representatives has approved a key Republican campaign promise to big business: Protecting it from what the new majority argues are the handcuffs of environmental safeguards. The Republicans would cuff the Environmental Protection Agency instead.

U.S. Rep. Cory Gardner, R-Colo., helped lead last week’s GOP onslaught against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, despite polling in his congressional district showing two-thirds of his constituents feel “Congress should let the EPA do its job.”

Having personally experienced a child struggling for breath during an asthma attack, I can assure you little else matters when children’s health is at risk. This is why I’m so offended by a number of professional politicians’ attempts to undermine life-saving protective health standards enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Passed under cover of night on Saturday, this bill endangers the health of New Hampshire’s children, elderly citizens and other vulnerable populations by blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from doing its job and cleaning up coal-fired power plants and other large sources of dangerous carbon dioxide pollution. It also cuts the EPA’s overall budget by the largest percentage in 30 years, severely threatening the agency’s ability to ensure that all New Hampshire residents have clean air to breathe and clean water to drink.

H.R. 1 cuts the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget by almost a third and hamstrings the EPA’s ability to protect the environment and Americans’ health. For example, the measure prevents the EPA from protecting communities from mercury, lead, arsenic and other toxic air pollution from cement plants, leaving thousands of children exposed and at risk of asthma, slowed brain development and other neurological disorders. The EPA safeguard that the measure blocks would have reduced mercury pollution by more than 90 percent and saved 2,500 lives each year.

]]>http://blog.nwf.org/2011/02/public-backlash-intensifies-against-polluter-bailout-bill/feed/3Still Waters Run Deep, Budget Cuts Run Deeperhttp://blog.nwf.org/2011/02/still-waters-run-deep-budget-cuts-run-deeper/
http://blog.nwf.org/2011/02/still-waters-run-deep-budget-cuts-run-deeper/#respondWed, 16 Feb 2011 21:01:10 +0000http://blog.nwf.org/wildlifepromise/?p=13875Still waters run deep, but congressional budget cuts run even deeper. The continuing resolution put forward by the majority in the House of Representatives will gut regional programs designed to protect and restore our nation’s great waters. These programs create and save jobs connected to fishing, recreation, tourism, transportation, trade, energy and clean water.

Lake Erie (Mark Hogan/Flickr)

Here is a list of some of the successful regional initiatives that will be cut significantly by the continuing resolution:

$441 million from the Army Corps construction budget that includes projects to restore coastal Louisiana and the Florida Everglades

$5.6 million from the National Estuary Program ($200 million per watershed)

$2.1 million culled from all of the other geographic restoration initiatives

In additon to cutting programs that keep our waters clean and safe, the continuing resolution also severely handicaps the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the Clean Water Act. Cuts to clean water mean more pollution, fish kills, dead zones, invasive species, health threats and less tourism, fishing, and recreation jobs and dollars.